Two recent articles show the tensions that are developing in northern Iraq among the Kurds: both the New York Times and The Independent report.
I sort of expected this. The Kurds have been enjoying what amounts to an unrecognized independent nation under the northern No Fly Zone. Overthrowing Saddam may cause compromises they don't like, and I never expected making them happy to be our top priority. I'm not sure what the best resolution here is. I suspect the Kurds will be in a much better position if the Turks wind up not supporting our efforts in the war--which several sources, including the London Times, report may very well be about to happen.
Oddly enough, I find myself half-hoping that the Turks do walk away. Yes, it will force us to base our attacks elsewhere, and I hate to think of anything that makes things harder for our troops. But I feel strongly for the Kurds, and I'd like to see them in the best position possible in a post-war Iraq.
(Thanks to Doug Barrett for the Independent article.
Check out this Newsweek article (on MSNBC) Dean. Even if the Turks don't allow US troops in, they may still invade Iraq independently (maybe as far as half way to Baghdad!). Looks like a Turkish occupation zone in (northern) Iraq is inevitable. But it still sucks.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/873499.asp#BODY
The story suggests that the battle is over the oil rich cities of Mosul and Kirkuk. The US wants US troops occupying them. The Turks want to grab it themselves. The territorial opportunism reminds me of WWI.
More commentary can be found at the FLIT blog, as well as other places (www.back-to-iraq.com). All of the other sites have a anti-war bent (or are ambivalent). There is a niche in the blogosphere for a gung-ho supporter of war to cover post-war reconstruction/democracy issues. Of all pro-war supporters, I think you've become most closely identified with Iraqi democracy. Perhaps this niche is for you.
I also hope the Turks say no and stay out of it. If I were in charge of a post-war Iraq, I would create the United States of Persia. It would be based on our history and start with about four states. I would let the Kurds form one of these states.
It sounds to me as though Turkey will begin their own Vietnam War if they invade and occupy northern Iraq. Does anybody believe Turkey will stay long?
I think if Turkey tries anything, it will last as long as the 1956 seizure of the Suez Canal by France, Britain, and Israel. The US and Russia said no and that was that.
BTW, before anyone points it out, I know that historically Persia was Iran, not Iraq. But the name is still available - look at Congo.
Admiral Quixote,
If what you say is true then Turkey stands a whole lot to lose if they choose to reject America’s $26 Billion offer. Not only will they lose a whole lot of money. They will suffer serious economic dislocation due to the war anyway. Then Turkey will have no influence whatsoever in a post war Iraq. Do you think Saddam Hussein will fly the coop? He actually made plans to do so in 1991.
Kevin,
I agree Turkey has a lot to lose no matter what the amount is (I see ranges from $4 billion to $92 billion depending up the paper, who they quote, and how they figure). If they want a say in the post-Saddam government, they should cooperate.
If I were Saddam, I'd certainly fly the coop with billions of dollars. But if Saddam were a reasonable person, he wouldn't be Saddam.
I didn't know that about 1991, do you have a cite I could read? My guess is that Saddam won't leave. There will be a war within 3 weeks, with a possibility some guard will just shoot Saddam at the last minute. But that's just my 2 cents.
Admiral Quixote,
I heard that fact regarding Saddam and 1991 on some cable news channel. Assassinating Saddam is the humane way to handle this. After all, that is exaclty how he seized power in 1975, I believe.